well, under normal circumstances, I'd say the police. I'd also say that it is possible for the police note to be different from Mitchell's recollection. In addition, there is no evidence that this was in any way a set up by the Police Federation as they pursue their opposition to govt policy.

However , these are not normal circumstances: on the one hand, the police have to rebuild trust in view of Orgreave, Hillsborough, Kisko, Rochdale and Rotherham, Tomlinson, de Menezes ( sp.) and many more.

On the other hand, Mitchell is clearly in the wrong: he tucks his trousers in his socks to ride his bike and he has a silly foppish haircut.

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

People are more than usually eager these days to believe the worst of an MP, let alone a party Whip. On the other hand, as it's been said on here, the Police haven't been particularly spotless when it comes to factual accuracy either.

If only there was a way that both sides could lose this...

"I always enjoyed it more if there was a body or two lying about, it made the job a bit more interesting"Vince Karalius

The way that something so minor has dragged on for something like three weeks, I'd pretty much say that both sides have lost.

Aye. Both sides have looked bad in this. Mitchell has appeared arrogant, shifty and untrustworthy and and the police have looked shifty, untrustworthy and determined to get their man by using the Murdoch press. Why have police officers informed journalists of the contents of their notebooks concerning a matter that doesn't appear to be dealt with as a potential criminal case, and is this within their operating rules? Pretty unsavoury across the board.

On a local news programme (south east) this was being discussed, and a straw poll of people stopped in the street came down firmly on the side of believing the police and not Mitchell. It also made a couple of interesting points that seems to have been overlookeded, one was that, according to people who knew him, the term 'plebs' was a term frequently used by Mitchell when refering to certain types of people, and the second was when asked why the police officer should record this incident in the first place, that Mitchells parting shot was "I'm going to have your job for this", and being a person of some position in the government the incident was written down and signed as correct by other police officers that were there so as to record the event in case Mitchell tried to make something out of it.

....a straw poll of people stopped in the street came down firmly on the side of believing the police and not Mitchell.....

hmmm, thought provoking but not sure of the value. if a straw poll of people stopped in the street came down firmly on the side of believing that the cube root of 27 was 4, it wouldn't make it right. I think that people will choose who to believe according to their political views.

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.

hmmm, thought provoking but not sure of the value. if a straw poll of people stopped in the street came down firmly on the side of believing that the cube root of 27 was 4, it wouldn't make it right. I think that people will choose who to believe according to their political views.

Not saying anything about its value, just reporting what was said/done on a local tv news programme, It was just something that the tv report did, can't quote it word for word, but they said something like 'we sent researchers out onto the streets of London to ask who's version of events do you believe, out of over 500(?) people questioned, the result was firmly on the side of the police officers version of events.' Maybe its just that people don't trust politicians.